alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**Certificationpursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, JoelBoyarski, the Chief Financial Officer of WorldGate Communications, Inc., herebycertify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theForm 10-Q of WorldGate Communications, Inc., for the three months ended March31, 2003 (the “March 31, 2003 Form 10-Q”), which this certificationaccompanies, fully complies with requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and informationcontained in the March 31, 2003  Form10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of WorldGate Communications, Inc.

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toWorldGate and will be retained by WorldGate and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 
| Dated: | 05/15/03 |   | /s/ JOEL  BOYARSKI |   |
|--------|----------|--------|--------------------|--------|
|   |     |   |               |   |   |
|   |     |   | Joel Boyarski      |   |   |

 

----
Exhibit 13a
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
  
 In connection with the annual report on
Form 20-F of LiveReel Media Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.  The annual report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.  The information contained in
the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant.
 
 
 Date:  December 15,
2009
 
 
 /s/ Gregg
Goldstein
 
 Gregg Goldstein
 Chief Executive
Officer
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Exhibit 13a
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
 
 In connection with the annual report on
Form 20-F of LiveReel Media Corporation. for the year ended June 30, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:
 
 1.  The annual report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.  The information contained in
the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the registrant.
 
 
 Date:  December 15,
2008
 
 
 /s/ J.
Stephen Wilson
 
 J. Stephen Wilson
 Chief Financial Officer & Corporate
Secretary
 
 
 
 A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Harry G. Kleindinst, Respondent, v Norma J. Kleindinst, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: The trial court granted plaintiff a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment (Domestic Relations Law § 170 [1]). While such a determination will not lightly be overturned on appeal *(see, Forcucci v Forcucci,*96 AD2d 751), there must be a reversal here because the evidence in support of plaintiff’s cause of action was insufficient as a matter of law.

A plaintiff seeking a divorce under the cruel and inhuman treatment subdivision must show serious misconduct on the part of defendant, and not mere incompatibility of the parties *(Hessen v Hessen,*33 NY2d 406). Ordinarily what is required is a showing of a course of conduct by the defendant spouse which is harmful to the physical or mental health of the plaintiff and makes cohabitation unsafe or improper *(Buckley v Buckley,*93 AD2d 973). Proof that defendant is uncooperative and argumentative *(see, Gemayel v Gemayel,*63 AD2d 831), or that relations between the parties have been strained and unpleasant *(see, Orloff v Orloff,*49 AD2d 975) is insufficient unless it is shown that such conduct adversely affected plaintiff’s physical or mental health. Consideration must also be given to the length of the marriage *(Brady v Brady,*64 NY2d 339; *Hessen v Hessen, supra).*Thus, in a marriage of *989long duration, a higher degree of proof is required to establish cruel and inhuman treatment *(see, e.g., Passantino v Passantino,*87 AD2d 973; *Anderson v Anderson,*58 AD2d 679).

Applying these principles to this 30-year marriage which produced four children, all emancipated, it is clear that the court erred in granting the divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. This was a brief trial at which only plaintiff and defendant testified. The proof established nothing more than relatively minor unpleasant incidents which occurred periodically during the marriage, demonstrating, at most, strained relations between the parties. No evidence was offered which would support a finding that defendant engaged in conduct which was harmful to the physical or mental health of plaintiff and which made cohabitation unsafe or improper. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s conduct caused the weight loss of 30 pounds which he said he suffered in 1979. It is as likely, on the proof submitted, that his loss of weight was attributable to an infection which required his hospitalization during that same period of time. In any event, plaintiff offered no medical proof to establish that his health was adversely affected by defendant’s conduct *(see, Buckley v Buckley,*93 AD2d 973, *supra).*Finally, we note that the trial court made no finding of fault on the part of defendant *(see, Brady v Brady,*64 NY2d 339, 343, *supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Francis, J.— divorce.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and O’Donnell, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38362]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15456]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, July 22, 2021.

PLACE: Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the meeting will be open to the 
public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage 
(www.ncua.gov) and access the provided webcast link.

STATUS: This meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. NCUA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.
    2. Request for Information and Comment, Digital Assets and Related 
Technologies.
    3. NCUA Rules and Regulations, Complex Credit Union Leverage Ratio.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks, 
Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Melane Conyers-Ausbrooks,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2021-15456 Filed 7-16-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 2 14 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ RONALDO MITCHELL RAN GEL CHAVEZ , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 430 th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



# MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Benavides , and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Ronaldo Mitchell Rangel Chavez , attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for indecency with a child . We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Sentence in this matter was imposed on Ma rch 9, 2015 . No motion for new trial was filed. Notice of appeal was filed on April 9, 2015 . On May 7, 2015 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfected.2

Appellant was advised that the appeal wou ld be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court ’ s directive. Appellant has not responded to this notice. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.2(a)(1). The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days af ter the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3. A lthough the notice of appeal herein was filed within the 15

- day time period fo r filing a motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, no such motion for extension of time was filed. See id. This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519 , 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). “ When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen

- day period but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction. ” Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal , a court of appeals does not obtain jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post

- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

.3

P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, § 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garci a , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. PER CURIAM
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 4 th day of June, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
          EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIONX IMPLANTS, INC., AND
          IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
          STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001030418
<NAME>                        BIONX IMPLANTS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                        US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                              22,610
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                           112
<INVENTORY>                                          1,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    26,478
<PP&E>                                                 898
<DEPRECIATION>                                          75
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      31,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,873
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                17
<OTHER-SE>                                          28,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        31,256
<SALES>                                              7,040
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,148
<CGS>                                                1,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        4,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        904
<INCOME-TAX>                                           228
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Annual Report of Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
| | ---- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/Joan KatzeffPresidentJanuary 3, 2006
#### Claude J. CLARK, Appellant v. SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

No. 08-1531.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 8, 2008.

Filed: Jan. 13, 2009.

Mark Cimino, Esq., Deptford, NJ, for Appellant.

Lucretia C. Clemons, Esq., Daniel V. Johns, Esq., Thomas D. Rethage, Jr., Esq., Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Phil*797adelphia, PA, for Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority.

Before: MCKEE, SMITH and ROTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MCKEE, Circuit Judge.

Claude Clark appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Agency (“SEPTA”) and against him on the claim he brought under the Americans with Disability Act, the Rehabilitation Act and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with the background of this case, we need not repeat the factual or procedural history. We have reviewed Judge Diamond’s thoughtful and careful Memorandum, dated January 24, 2008, 2008 WL 219223, in which the district court explains why defendant is entitled to summary judgment and why plaintiff is not. We can add little to the district court’s analysis and will therefore affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in that Memorandum.
ex10-1.htm


    Exhibit 10.1

    
 

     

    
       

      AMENDMENT
TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT

       

      November 9, 2009

       

      Food
Innovations, Inc.

      3845
Beck Blvd., Suite 805

      Naples,
FL 34114

      Attn:
Justin Wiernasz

       

       

      Dear,
Justin:


       

      This
letter shall serve as an amendment to the Supply Agreement entered into between
Next Day Gourmet, L. P. (“NDG”) and Food Innovations, Inc. (“Vendor”), dated as
of September 11, 2003, as amended (the “Agreement”).

       

      Effective
as of November 9, 2009, USF and Vendor hereby agree to extend the contract dates
of the Agreement by an additional sixty (60) days. Accordingly, the ending date
of the Agreement shall change from December 11, 2009 to February 11, 2010. All
other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in effect.

       

      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties acknowledge their agreement to the foregoing by the
execution of this Amendment by their respective authorized representatives as of
the date first above written.
##### 



Exhibit 14.2 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the Registration
Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration Statement on Form
F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale Overseas of our
report dated January 21, 2004 on the financial statements of ALBRAS  Alumínio
Brasileiro S.A. which appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and
Vale Overseas for the year ended December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Trevisan Auditores Independentes
 1
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors and Stockholders

Young Innovations, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-138323, 333-61572, 333-65673, and 333-57742) on Form S-8 of Young Innovations, Inc. of our report dated March 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Young Innovations, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of Young Innovations, Inc.

(signed) KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 11, 2009
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 638 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for compensation 

to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a felony or 

two or more misdemeanors. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2011 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. KYL, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. 

BOXER, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented 

aliens charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘SCAAP Reimburse5 ment Protection Act of 2011’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 638 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UN2 DOCUMENTED ALIENS CHARGED WITH CER3 TAIN CRIMES. 

4 Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘charged with or’’ before ‘‘convicted’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021053EN.01003401.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/34

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — 3V Sigma v ECHA

(Case T-176/19) (1)

(REACH - Substance evaluation - UVASORB HEB - Decision of the ECHA requesting further information - Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Request seeking to identify potential transformation or degradation products of the substance - Proportionality - Need for the additional study requested - Relevant conditions and realistic conditions - Study temperature - Manifest error of assessment)

(2021/C 53/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3V Sigma SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Bryant and S. Hainsworth, Solicitors, and by D. Anderson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: A. Hautamäki, J. Alaranta and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, D. Klebs, and S. Heimerl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Decision A-004-2017 of the ECHA Board of Appeal of 15 January 2019 in so far as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the ECHA of 20 December 2016 requiring that further information be provided about the substance UVASORB HEB and in so far as the deadline for providing that information was set at 22 October 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders 3V Sigma SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim relief; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders 3V Sigma SpA to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those incurred in connection with the proceedings for interim relief;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019.

---
#### Asad Sammi NIYAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; Countrywide Home Loans, Incorporated, America’s Wholesale Lender; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; Reconstruct Company, N.A., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.; Mers, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems; Samuel I. White, P.C.; Jon Doe, 1-100, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-1101.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.

Asad Sammi Niyaz, Appellant Pro Se. Jenelle Marie Dennis, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Bethesda, Maryland; Constantinos George Panagopoulos, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Asad Sammi Niyaz appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in his lawsuit filed in an attempt to prevent foreclosure on his property. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Niyaz v. Bank of America,*No. 1:10-cv-00796-JCC-TCB, 2011 WL 68655 (E.D.Va. Jan. 8, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*